Ars Technicast, Episode 4–The science and the fiction of Prometheus

Ridley Scott’s latest film created divisions among science fiction enthusiasts.

This week we devote the show to science fiction, and in particular Ridley Scott’s new film Prometheus. Warning: this show is extremely spoiler-heavy, so if you don’t want to know details about the film, wait until you see it first, since we give away major plot points.

Ridley’ Scott’s loose prequel to his 1979 film Alien provides fertile ground to discuss the fiction and storytelling used in the film, but the movie has very little science that can be compared to science in the real world. We also discuss how the scientists aboard the Prometheus don’t behave like actual scientists. And no discussion of this series of films is complete without talking about the monsters. Does the creature design of Prometheus work with previous films in the Alien series to please the fans? Tune in to find out. Host Senior Apple Editor Jacqui Cheng is joined by Open Source Editor Ryan Paul, Social Editor Cesar Torres, and Ars Contributor Casey Johnston.

If there are topics you'd like us to cover in future episodes, leave us a comment, or if you simply have something to say about the show, you can leave us an iTunes store review.

Promoted Comments

It's a movie. It was entertaining. I don't see the necessity for it to be scientifically precise, especially if it might come at the expense of the entertainment value.

193 posts | registered Feb 16, 2000

Cesar Torres
Cesar is the Social Editor at Ars Technica. His areas of expertise are in online communities, human-computer interaction, usability, and e-reader technology. Cesar lives in New York City. Emailcesar.torres@arstechnica.com//Twitter@Urraca

One comment regarding the show, volumes across speakers should be relatively the same and you guys need to do better at not talking simultaneously. Perhaps no more than 3 speakers may help with that. I understand the lag complicates matters as well.

It's a movie. It was entertaining. I don't see the necessity for it to be scientifically precise, especially if it might come at the expense of the entertainment value.

If the movie had been as scary as the first Alien, I would forgive the bad science. Instead, it was a plodding intellectual movie written by the staff of Ancient Aliens, and deserves to be picked apart.

If a bunch of scientists are sent out on a quest light years away- how come they've never even met each other? Wouldn't you want a team that works well with each other? Or at least a team who knows why they just wasted 2 years of their lives in a spaceship?

It's a movie. It was entertaining. I don't see the necessity for it to be scientifically precise, especially if it might come at the expense of the entertainment value.

But there are plenty of places where it can be correct and doesn't harm the entertainment value at all. There is no good excuse for fudging those up. When you have a multi-million dollar budget, you can spare a few grand to have a couple college professors do a quick science proof-read of your script.

In fact, many films do exactly that. Here they didn't and should be taken to ask for it (at least to some extent).

If the movie had been as scary as the first Alien, I would forgive the bad science. Instead, it was a plodding intellectual movie written by the staff of Ancient Aliens, and deserves to be picked apart.

Wow - That's the most damning review I've ever seen... Are you sure you're not being too harsh by comparing it to Ancient Aliens?

When curiosity overrode fear (fight or flight- that's a natural behavioural law). At one crucial point, was severely lacking to the point that it confused me to the point that I said "Why?". That really bugged me.

If the movie had been as scary as the first Alien, I would forgive the bad science. Instead, it was a plodding intellectual movie written by the staff of Ancient Aliens, and deserves to be picked apart.

Wow - That's the most damning review I've ever seen... Are you sure you're not being too harsh by comparing it to Ancient Aliens?

I loosely agree with Kalkin. I wonder if the movie would benefit from an (extremely?) extended edition in order to hash out some of the plot, however, I don't know if I'm willing to devote the necessary time to watch that.

I enjoyed the movie, but it felt like some critical pieces of it were left on the cutting room floor. Other than that it was entertaining enough, very good looking, and a fun movie. I wouldn't be surprised to see a director's cut that fills in a lot of the plot and logic gaps.

The humorless dicks who sit around bitching about how sci-fi movie XYZ has totally shitty science need to get the stick out of their collective ass. I like hard and "realistic" sci-fi as much as the next person, but you know what, hyper-futuristic magical doo-dads and spaceships are a lot of goddam fun too. Try relaxing for a little bit and enjoy the brain junk food for a change.

If the movie had been as scary as the first Alien, I would forgive the bad science. Instead, it was a plodding intellectual movie written by the staff of Ancient Aliens, and deserves to be picked apart.

Wow - That's the most damning review I've ever seen... Are you sure you're not being too harsh by comparing it to Ancient Aliens?

There were definitely some questions left unanswered. That's why I'm hoping for a sequel. There is enough story line for another film. If AVP got a sequel, this one surely should.

As for the details... Sure it's nice when a fact checker is used, but for the masses it doesn't matter. I have found very few sci-fi movies that are scientifically sound. So if this one is not, so what? That just means it's on par with all the rest.

My brother won't go see any movie that is not absolutely 100% historically accurate. Well, fine for him, but he misses out on some great films. The same goes here. If you're so caught up in the details that it ruins your experience, then you're probably always going to be disappointed. I would hate to go through life that way.

If a bunch of scientists are sent out on a quest light years away- how come they've never even met each other? Wouldn't you want a team that works well with each other? Or at least a team who knows why they just wasted 2 years of their lives in a spaceship?

The team was created by a man with a lot of money. He doesn't care if they work well together. He's just trying to get the best money can buy.

I loosely agree with Kalkin. I wonder if the movie would benefit from an (extremely?) extended edition in order to hash out some of the plot, however, I don't know if I'm willing to devote the necessary time to watch that.

not exactly sure what you mean so i may be off base, but a movie needs to keep some mystery, once you explain everything it becomes boring.

i've been waiting to know more about the space jockey since seeing the first Alien as a kid, i am happy i still want to know more.

eventually someone is going to say "oh, they are tall humans" and i am going to wonder why i ever cared about them.

If the movie had been as scary as the first Alien, I would forgive the bad science. Instead, it was a plodding intellectual movie written by the staff of Ancient Aliens, and deserves to be picked apart.

Wow - That's the most damning review I've ever seen... Are you sure you're not being too harsh by comparing it to Ancient Aliens?

its funny how many people missed the 'corporate' aspect of the exploration mission. It wasn't like NASA sent the ship out full of scientists, it was funded by a corporation and therefore manned by whomever the corporation wanted. This is also why the crew didn't know each other - the corporation didn't want them to.

Its also interesting how finite most people believe our knowledge of the past to be. I'm not saying humans didn't evolve on earth but there is a chance that we haven't discovered something that happened in the millions of years that life has existed on earth that would alter what we now believe. this has happened many, many of times before and yet each time something is proposed there are droves of people claiming that what know is the only thing that could've happened with zealot-like enthusiasm. I don't think we'll ever be able to account for everything that happened in the past 5,000 years much less any time before that and that means that almost anything is possible.

Ars just needs to drop it regarding this movie. it wasn't great and sci-fi being what it is, science does not need to be accurate. Would Ars consider (the new) Star-Trek to be a 'good' movie b/c the science demonstrated in that movie was 'more realistic'? I'd like to see anyone try to prove the 'accuracy' of the science in a movie based on currently unknown future technology is realistic in anyway.

I loosely agree with Kalkin. I wonder if the movie would benefit from an (extremely?) extended edition in order to hash out some of the plot, however, I don't know if I'm willing to devote the necessary time to watch that.

i've been waiting to know more about the space jockey since seeing the first Alien as a kid, i am happy i still want to know more.

I'm a big Alien/Aliens fan, have watched both since I saw Prometheus and I can't associate any of the ideas they put on the screen as having anything to do with the world of Alien/Aliens. It felt more like a marketing/design decision and the connection felt very arbitrarily threw together.

Just seeing the space jockey again in the original Alien, I still use my imagination to wonder what worlds the xenomorphs and jockeys came from. The engineer/black goo thing just doesn't work for me.

My problem with the movie wasn't with science, more with characters and plot points.

The thing that bothered me is that the aliens (black goo) just didn't evolve with any rhyme or reason. Why did some people become zombies all of a sudden. Why would having sex with an infected person produce a squid? Why would the squad produce an "alien". Like there is just no rhyme or reason. Red letter media covered this better with this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... x1YuvUQFJ0

but the movie has very little science that can be compared to science in the real world.

The Ars staff seem to be very focused on saying that "Prometheus" (a big budget sci-fi movie) has some innacurate science as if that is some revelation.

As was already discussed in the Ars "Science gets burned by Prometheus" article; (SPOILERS)

1. Any argument that popular sci-fi TV and films should be like science documentaries shows a lack of awareness of the popular sci-fi genre.

- I'll start by mentioning a Michael Bay sci- film, "Armageddon". That movie was filmed with many unnecessary scientific inaccuracies. Especially since a more scientifically accurate film with a similar premise, "Deep Impact", was released the same year.But "Armageddon" did much better at the box office in comparison to "Deep Impact". And this tells us that most of the mass audience doesn't care about scientific accuracy in big-budget, popular sci-fi films. They want excitement/adventure.

- To further support my point, I'll next mention the most recent sci-fi film directed by Roland Emmerich, "2012". Another movie filled with scientific inaccuracies but which did great box office.

* But I'll also look at sci-fi which has been praised by certain scientists and engineers such as Star Trek. The Star Trek franchise includes such outlandish ideas as a giant amoeba flying around the galaxy faster than the speed of light (The Original Series: "The Immunity Syndrome"). - In terms of genetics (which is a basic concept in "Prometheus"), several characters in Star Trek stories are human/alien hybrids with no mention in the films/TV episodes that sperm/egg fertilization did not happen naturally.- But we know from genetics that natural human fertilization requires very similar DNA between the parents.* However, in Star Trek while humans are able to naturally impregnate or be impregnated by Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, and a Ktarian; medical scans do not show that these species are almost genetically identical to humans. For instance Vulcans have green blood. Klingons have duplicate organs.

- "2001: A Space Odyssey" has rightfully been praised as being more accurate than typical popular sci-fi. Both "Prometheus" and "2001" use the ancient astronaut altering human evolution idea.- "2001" has the concept that a primate by merely touching a space alien will not only dramatically alter its abilities but that his new abilities will drastically change human evolution leading to modern humans. I can't find any scientific basis for this.- The basis of space aliens altering human evolution in "Prometheus" is seeding and changing DNA. Unlike "2001", the ancient astronaut idea influencing human evolution in "Prometheus" (seeding a planet with organic material) is based on a scientific idea.- Because the concept of organic materials coming from space, from asteroids, altering evolution, is being considered by scientists.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142302.htm

- Some viewers have tried to find fairly scientifically accurate sci-fi films. "Sunshine" doesn't work because its basic premises are not scientifically accurate. Anyone bringing up small budget and small box office films like "Moon" misses the point. "Prometheus" is a big budget, mass audience, action/sci-fi movie. "Moon" does not fit in that category.

** More from the above Technicast description;

Quote:

We also discuss how the scientists aboard the Prometheus don’t behave like actual scientists.

2. We should keep in mind that scientists are people just with more education and training.

- Scientists can get scared which could overwhelm their scientific curiosity as we see when the biologist and geologist (and the rest of the crew) see the dead/decapitated Engineer/alien.- Scientists can get lost in caves. For instance Eric Establie, who was a hydrogeologist and an expert cave explorer, died while exploring a cave complex.http://www.france24.com/en/20101012-cav ... uk-ardeche

3. Other complaints about the scientific accuracy of "Prometheus";- The quick recovery of the patient who had a C-section (performed by the medical module) it is often mentioned in discussions about this movie;There is technology in "Prometheus" which is far beyond the technology that we have today. It is possible that medical technology may advance in a future society on earth that could result in quicker healing after a C-section.

The thing that bothered me is that the aliens (black goo) just didn't evolve with any rhyme or reason. Why did some people become zombies all of a sudden. Why would having sex with an infected person produce a squid? Why would the squad produce an "alien". Like there is just no rhyme or reason. Red letter media covered this better with this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... x1YuvUQFJ0

planet filled with biological weapons, why do you assume each was the same?

The problem with Prometheus are not with the bad science... it's with the bad script. The film is a muddy mess. Entertaining despite it, but it'll never be a significant film because of narrative and dramatic weakness.

planet filled with biological weapons, why do you assume each was the same?

"We've got this grenade...""...yes?""And it kills things.""How?""Well--see--that's the thing. Sometimes, it just blows up, which kills things. Sometimes, it also crawls up their ass beforehand...""I see... well, that's peculiar.""Wait--there's more: sometimes, instead of blowing up, it puts on a little hat, and gets in a little car, and drives to your mother's house, and fucks her.... ...to death... Then sends you pictures. And the pictures are covered in anthrax. And the anthrax is listening to Dio. And the Dio song implants a post-hypnotic suggestion that you should jump off a high bridge. ...sometimes that's how it kills you.""That makes no sense.""But... we have millions of them!"

Haven't listened to the podcast because as someone noted, I can read far faster than people can talk, and I can't listen at work. So this will be more a complaint about the movie itself.

r venosa wrote:

My problem with the movie wasn't with science, more with characters and plot points.

This x1000. I am willing to accept that 80 years from now, technology has progressed to the point where it meets Arthur C Clarke's famous comment and becomes indistinguishable from magic. I am also willing to accept that an alien civilization may have similarly advanced technology.

Artificial gravity and the ability to read others' dreams is fine. I could give a greased ratfuck if the automed can't handle females but can still successfully perform a Caesarean "manually." I might question the design of the rovers but that doesn't take away from the enjoyment of the movie for me. I can even accept that an omega-shaped alien spaceship can roll like a half-kilometer doughnut after taking a direct hit from hundreds of thousands of tons of human spaceship.

What I can't accept is that a scientist would be afraid of a 2000 year old dead body and want to touch an angry alien snake. I can't accept that a father and daughter with such an adversarial relationship would go on such an expedition together. I can't accept that a ship's captain - captain of possibly the most important expedition in human history - would put sex ahead of the safety of his passengers. I can't accept that, when confronted with an omega-shaped alien spaceship rolling like a half-kilometer doughnut, a friggin scientist would run in the same direction that the ship is rolling, despite the fact that when she falls on her face (surprise surprise) she can literally roll out of the way.

When the people in the movie are so stupid that you wonder what mcdegree they bought to call themselves scientists, you tend not to notice the other bullshit thrown your way.

its funny how many people missed the 'corporate' aspect of the exploration mission. It wasn't like NASA sent the ship out full of scientists, it was funded by a corporation and therefore manned by whomever the corporation wanted. This is also why the crew didn't know each other - the corporation didn't want them to.

Its also interesting how finite most people believe our knowledge of the past to be. I'm not saying humans didn't evolve on earth but there is a chance that we haven't discovered something that happened in the millions of years that life has existed on earth that would alter what we now believe. this has happened many, many of times before and yet each time something is proposed there are droves of people claiming that what know is the only thing that could've happened with zealot-like enthusiasm. I don't think we'll ever be able to account for everything that happened in the past 5,000 years much less any time before that and that means that almost anything is possible.

Ars just needs to drop it regarding this movie. it wasn't great and sci-fi being what it is, science does not need to be accurate. Would Ars consider (the new) Star-Trek to be a 'good' movie b/c the science demonstrated in that movie was 'more realistic'? I'd like to see anyone try to prove the 'accuracy' of the science in a movie based on currently unknown future technology is realistic in anyway.

yep. You are right on this one. Too many people are missing that point. The bottom line is, regardless of the premise or the science or anything else, this movie was not great. Possibly not even good. A few hours of eye candy and mindless entertainment.

[quote="Tom Brokaw" I can't accept that, when confronted with an omega-shaped alien spaceship rolling like a half-kilometer doughnut, a friggin scientist would run in the same direction that the ship is rolling, despite the fact that when she falls on her face (surprise surprise) she can literally roll out of the way.

[/quote]

This is the part that was the worst for me. One of the dumbest movie cliches of all time. I saw a brilliant comment by a reviewer on IMDB:

planet filled with biological weapons, why do you assume each was the same?

"We've got this grenade...""...yes?""And it kills things.""How?""Well--see--that's the thing. Sometimes, it just blows up, which kills things. Sometimes, it also crawls up their ass beforehand...""I see... well, that's peculiar.""Wait--there's more: sometimes, instead of blowing up, it puts on a little hat, and gets in a little car, and drives to your mother's house, and fucks her.... ...to death... Then sends you pictures. And the pictures are covered in anthrax. And the anthrax is listening to Dio. And the Dio song implants a post-hypnotic suggestion that you should jump off a high bridge. ...sometimes that's how it kills you.""That makes no sense.""But... we have millions of them!"

Funny, but missing the point. * The black goo in the film alters DNA. - But the way that DNA can be altered in "Prometheus" can be done in different ways.- And some of the changes are similar to what we see in the other Alien films.

1. There are worms in the floor of the room with the large head sculpture. It is possible that these worms are native to the planet and by accident got into the Engineer/alien rooms.- Once the room is opened by the human explorers, the atmosphere clearly changes (we see this when the paintings on the ceiling begin to deteriorate). Then the worms as well as the black goo in the containers become active.- The black goo interacts with the worms turning them into snakelike face huggers.

2. If a human touches the black goo, then the genetic change is different (as a human being does not = a worm). The black goo then alters human DNA creating worms inside the human body. Eventually, the human is taken over by the worms and becomes an out-of-control creature that tries to kill anything in its path.

3. If a human being who has been infected by the black goo has sex with a woman, then the woman's egg is fertilized and it becomes a very large face hugger.

4. If the large face hugger is able to implant a baby creature into another being (like the Engineer/alien at the end of the film), then the baby alien becomes a chestburster.- This chestburster then looks similar to the creature that we see in the first Alien movie.